Priutto unit fiturzeings Varliamrut.

PRINCIPAL strsurgire OF WEB WEEK.

House OF LORDS. Monday, July 2. Christianity in India ; the Duke of Marl- borough's Motion-Caledonian and Crinan Canals Bill read a second time-Criminal Lunatic Asylums Bill read a second time-Spirits (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill, committed Tuesday, July 3. Royal Assent to the Public Improvements, Bank of Ireland, Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction, Petitions of Rights, Bankrupt Law (Scotland ) Amendment Bills-Masters and Operatives Bill read a second time-New Zealand Bill read a second: time-Inland Bonding Bill committedi-Crinfinal Lunatic Asylums Bill committed-Spirits (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill read a third time and passed. Thursday, July 5. Garibaldi; Lord Normanby's Question-Highland Roads and Bridges Bill read a third time and passed-Inland Bonding Bill read a third time and passed. Friday, July G. Jews Act Amendment Bill read a second time-St. George's-in- the East ; Lord Dungannon's Complaint-New Zealand Bill committed .

House oe COTIXONS. AllOrially, July 2. European Forces (India) Bill read a se- cond time-County Prisons (Ireland) Bill withdrawn-Poor-law Board Continuance Bill read a second time-Militia Bill read a second time-Game Certificates Bill read a second time, Tuesday, July 3. Mines Regulation and Inspection Bill committed-Tenure and Improvement of Land (Ireland) Bill committed-A Military Grievance; Colonel Lindsay's Motion-Naval Cadetships ; Captain Esmonde's Motion-" Count out." Wednesday, July 4. Church Rates ; Mr. Hubbard's Bill withdrawn-High- ways ; Sir George Lewis's Bill read a second time-Dealers in Marine Stores Bill dropped. Thursday, July 5. St. Juan ; Lord J. Russell's Answer to Mr. Williams- Naples; Lord J. Russell's Statement-Privileges of the Commons' Lord Palmer- ston's Resolutions-Indemnity Bill read a second time-Registration of Births, &c. (Ireland) Bill withdrawn. Friday, July 6. Edinburgh Annuity-tax Abolition Bill committed-Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Bill in committee-Bankruptcy. Bill ; Lord Palmetston's Answer to Mr. Crawford-Question of Privilege; Lord Palmerston's resolutions.

THE PRIVILEGE QUESTION.

The Report of the Committee on Tax-Bills was presented to the House of Commons late in the evening of Friday the 29th of Tune. On Tues- day, Lord PALMERSTON placed the following resolutions on the Paper, giving notice that he would move them on Thursday :—

"1. That the right of granting aids and supplies to the Crown is in the Chmmons alone, as an. essential part of their constitution, and the limi- tation of all such grants as to the matter, manner, measure, and time, is only in them.

"2. That, although the Lords have exercised the power of rejecting bills of several descriptions relating to taxation, by negativing the whole yet the exercise of that power by them has not been frequent, and is justly re- garded by this House with peculiar jealousy, as affecting the right o the Commons to grant the supplies, and to provide the Ways and means for the service of the year.

"3. That to guard for the future against an undue exercise of that power by the Lords, and to secure to the Commons their rightful control over taxation and supply, this House has in its own hands the power so to im- pose and remit taxes and to frame bills of supply, that the right of the Commons as to the matter, manner, measure, and time may be maintained inviolate."

Mr. CoLuvat and Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE gave notices of amendments, and on Thursday Mr. Jawss gave notice that he should move to add to the third resolution the words- " and this House is determined to assert such power." A little later Lord FEREIOY, in the name of the Liberal party, besought Mr. Buncombe not to press his motion. Mr. DUNCOMBE said he was extremely sorry to find that his amendment, which he had hoped would rescue the Liberal party from the impotency of Lord Pal- merston's resolutions, was inconvenient to that party. But if they would not support him there wouldle no use in putting it, and, therefore, he withdrew it.

Lord PALMERSTON then brought on the main question. After de- scribing the question as one of the utmost importance and' compliment- ing Mr. Walpole and the Tax Bill Committee, he entered upon a concise

survey of the growth of the rights and privileges of the authorities that subsist under the constitution, tracing it from the earliest period, and defining in general terms the powers of each of the three estates of the -realm. " Each estate retains its power. The crown can reject bills the power to do that being delegated to its responsible advisers: The Lords and Commons can reject measures. But the Commons claim peculiar privileges in regard to particular Bills—they claim the exclusive right of deteimining matters connected with the taxation of the people, and the right of originating such measures ; they have denied the Lords the right of amending or altering them, but admit the right to reject them. To take from the Lords the powerof dissenting to a bill to which their assent is required, you need an Act of Parliament, or you must by a revo- lutionary proceeding, subvert our existing constitution. Hitherto the power has been exercised where taxes were imposed ; the

present ease is one of repealing a tax. The great series of- precedents is somewhat beside the question, but in thirty-six cases, bills for repealing imposts have been rejected by the Lords. Yet these eases involved taxes of small amount, or were connected with questions of protection; so that, in these cases, it was not that the Lords refused to repeal a tax, but they dif- fered with the Commons on a questionof policy. Admit the technical right of the Lords to reject bills, yet the present case is different from any of the precedents, because the Commons have always maintained by action that it rested with them to determine what supplies should be granted, what taxes imposed and what remitted. "It is our privilege to combine the whole into one scheme, and when that scheme is so framed-it certainly is not con- sistent with the exclusive functions of this House that any material portion of it should be rejected by the other House, so as to alter and entirely vary the bearing of all the financial arrangements. (Cheers.) The question is, was that done by the House of Lords upon the late occasion ? " In principle it was. But it may have been that the Lords rejected the bill because they did not think the abolition of the burden would be for the public advantage. Under ordinary circumstances, the Lords would not have rejected the Paper- duty Bill. "I do not believe that the House of Lords intended to take the first step towards a partnership with this House in arranging, the Budget of the year, in fixing the measure, the manner, the time, or the amount of aids and supplies, which it belongs solely and exclusively to this-House to deter- mine. If any of us believe that such was their intention, and that this is only the first step in such a course, then I say that it wouldliecome us to take those measures which are in our power to defeat andifrustrate it ; but until we have some more decided proof that such an intention was enter- tained, I would adjure the House to content itself with the record of that declaration fwhieh is contained in the resolutions which I have had the ho- nour to lay upon the table, and not, without being drivenota it as a necessity to enter u on a format conflict with the other House of Parliament." (Cheers.) Had the Lijda received no encouragement from the Commons ? When the cmajority of 63 on the second reading was reduced to 9 on the third, might not the Lords have thought that, as the circumstances had altered, as mints had occurred not thought to be probable [the China estimate wart referred to], it would be well to give the Commons an opportunity of recansidering their decision. Lord Palmerston believed the Lords were actuated by motives of policy in rejecting the bill, and not by a desire todnvade the privileges of the Commons. He, therefore, urged them to be satisfiedwith a declaration and not to enter on a conflict. If the Lords had shown a desire to encroach on the Commons, they would be met not by wild resolutions, not by commencing a scolding match, but by action. The resolutions are adequate to the occasion. "It is of the utmost importance in &constitution like ours, where there are different branches independent of each other, each with powers of its own, and where cordial and har- monious action is necessary, that care should be taken to avoid the com- mencement of an unnecessary quarrel. The party which acted otherwise would incur a very grave responsibility. (Cheers and counter-cheers.) I will not believe that it was the intention of the House of Lords to do so. . . . . I am disposed to think that this House values highly the existence of that harmony which it is essential should prevail between the two branches of the Legislature, and if at all times that ought to be the ruling feeling of the House, I am sure there is nothing in the present aspect of af- fairs out of the kingdom—there is nothing, I repeat, in the general aspect of affairs in Europe and in the world—which should lead this House to think less lightly of the importance of a harmonious union, or to exhibit to foreign nations the lamentable and humiliating spectacle of a disunited Legislature, of a divided people, and of internal conflicts, at a time when it is desirable for the dignity, honour, and interest of this country that we should manifest to all nations a harmonious unity of action among- all the estates of the realm for the common welfare of the country. (Loud and continued cheers.)

He moved the first resolution.

Then arose a protracted debate. Mr. COLLIER said he had intended to move an amendment to the effect that the Lords, by rejecting the Paper- Duty Repeal Bill, had committed a violation of constitutional usage. But as the Liberals desired an unanimous vote, he should withdraw it. His speech. was an able and elaborate argument derived from the pre- cedents and other sources to prove the assertion in his amendment. Mr. CONINGHAM was of opinion that Lord Palmerston's speech would not be approved by the country. The resolutions are unmeaning platitudes. Mr. Wm:ear SCULLY did not oppose the resolutions, but he seemed to re- gard them as a preliminary to stronger measures. Mr. LEATHAM spoke against the Lords, and urged the House to defend its privileges. Mr. OSBORNE, while he regarded the repeal of the Paper Duty as rash and reckless criticised the resolutions and said the Lords had acted uncon- stitutionally. Mr. JAMES described the resolutions as meagre and paltry, and the conduct of the Lords as an usurpation. Mr. GLADSTONE congratulated the Opposition upon the prudence which induced them to remain silent partisans of the most gigantic and dangerous innovation that had been attempted in modern times. He saw no reason why he should withhold his consent to the resolutions, as a simple declaration of the privileges of the HOMO of Commons, but at the same time he thought it desirable that it should vindicate its right by action, and he reserved to himself entire the freedom to adopt any mode of vindicating that right which might appear to him to be most desirable. The pretended precedents reported by( "--nemmittee con-

tained no shred or rag of authority upon which to we the rejection of the bill for the repeal of dee Papereduty. The cone_ itional right of the House of Commons had been assailed ; it was the first duty of the Hous&to preserve that sacred inheritance, and he, for one, would be pre- pared at all hazards to maintain intact that precious deposit. Mr. Warresum, in reply to the taunt of Mr. Gladstone observed that the speech of Lord Palinerston was such as became the First Minister of the country; and admitting, as it did, distinctly and emphatically, the right of the House of Lords to resist the repeal of a tax, the speech was satisfactory to the Opposition side of the House. If the act of the Lords was a gigantic innovation on the constitution, as alleged by Mr. Glad- stone, why did he not meet the invasion of their privileges by action ? He maintained that that Act was sanctioned by the constitution and the law of the land, and its principle by the precedents cited by the Com- mittee. He accused the Chancellor of the Exchequer of making an at- tack upon the constitution, and if it was desired to strip the House of Lords of the right they had exercised, he asked a decision of the question whether we were to continue to live under that constitution, or whether it was to be revolutionized.

Lord Fannov said the Liberal party in allowing the resolutions to pass reserved the right to take other steps. Mr. DII.LWYN and Sir JOHN TRELAWNY could not accept the resolutions. The House ought to vindi- cate its privileges. Mr. Ricaium, Sir CHARLES DOUGLAS, Mr. Burr, and Sir SOHN SHELLEY refused to accept the resolutions as conclusive. Mr. STANSPELD said the only fault he found with the resolutions was that the concluding one did not explicitly point the moral of the tale; but he excepted to the speech of Lord Palmerston, who, he thought, ha abandoned the constitutional right of that House. There was no doubt

of the legal, technical right of the Lords to refuse their assent to any bill ; the only question was as to the constitutional exercise of the right, and he denied their constitutional right to refuse their assent to a money bill part of a Budget. The rejection of the Paper-Duty Repeal Bill was a claim to revise the Budget, to perpetuate a tax against the assent of the representatives of the people, and thereby to increase the Supply asked by the Crown. The question was whether the House would consent to such a claim.

Mr. DISRARLI offered to Lord Palmerston the sincere tribute of his adhesion to the patriotic speech by which he had introduced the resolu-

tion. He had acknowledged, on the part of her Majesty's Government, that the course taken by the House of Lords with respect to the Paper- Duty Bill was justified and authorized by the state of the law. If this

was the case there was an end at once of the question as to the privileges

of the House of Commons. A privilege that could not be asserted ceased to be a privilege, and was only a pretence. But he had confessed that . the act of the Lords was not only justified by law, but sanctioned by "%, policy. Was that conduct, be asked, which the House was called upon

" condemn ? After an examination of the three resolutions in con- on with the financial policy of the Government, he declared that he

nothing to object to in them ; they embodied, he said, his own ws ; and lie complained that he and his party should be exposed to attack from the Chancellor of the Exchequer because they. supported Majesty's Government. Adverting to the three amendments, of which notice had been given, and which had been withdrawn, notwith- standing that the Resolutions had been stigmatized as lame and impo- tent, he commented in a vein of humorous satire upon the inconsistent, incoherent, and absurd course taken by the authors of the amendments. In conclusion, he gave his cordial assent to the Resolution, which, in

his opinion, expressed a i temperate and wise course on the part of the ed House, and had been proposed a spirit suited to the occasion. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Vale he expressed his gratitude to Mr. Disraeli 1 for the support he had given to the Government, desired to vindicate Lord Palmerston from the interpretation which he had put upon his speech, and which the words would not bear. Lord Palmerston had admitted the technical and legal right of the Lords to reject a bill, but he had not said that they were not only justified by law, but sanctioned by policy. Lord John Russell proceeded to explain his own opinion of the act of the House of Lords—namely, that it was rash and unjustifiable, and might be followed by other similar acts, which in their consequences would work a new form of Government. The third resolution affirmed that the House had the power to guard against an undue exercise of power by the Lords, and he thought it would be unwise to state in detail in what way it would be exercised. Ever since the constitution had been a constitution, this House had had the power of regulating the finances of the country, and if that power was shared with the House of Lords, the result would be utter financial confusion. However indiscreet had been the conduct of the House of Lords, it was the duty of the Commons to pursue a calm and even course.

The debate was adjourned until Friday.

LOCAL EUROPEANS (INDIA) BILL.

The adjourned debate on the motion for- the second reading of Euro- pean Forces (India) Bill was resumed on Monday by Mr. lien, who spoke in opposition to the plan of the Government ; and complained that all the papers relating to the subject had not been laid before the House. Mr. Tonanies briefly expressed similar views. Sir DE LACY EVANh then moved that the debate be adjourned. He also complained that the papers had not been produced. In one despatch Lord Canning said that, in asserting the law and opposing the claims of the soldiers, he acted contrary to the advice of Lord Clyde ? Now, what was the advice of Lord Clyde ? Why that the local Europeans should at once be reenlisted. The gravity of the cases of insubordination has been exaggerated. The mutinous spirit said to be shown by the local army iamot sufficient reason for abolishing a force which has performed its duty to its sovereign in the most heroic and faithful manner. It was said the whole force had destroyed itself, whereas 17,000 local Euro- peans actually remain in India, -After showing how the patronage of the Horse Guards would be augmented, Sir De Lacy Evans said ha moved the adjournment of the debate because the papers had not been pro- duced. He would again ask Sir Charles Wood whether before the bill passed another stage, he would lay upon the table papers in continuation of those which they had received that morning, the protests and minutes of the Council, and copies of certain letters which were said to have passed betweea the right honourable gentleman and a- distlligaiillocd Member of the Council within the last twenty-four hours. MT. MONCKTON MILNES seconded the amendment, audit was suppkted by Colonel DUNNE, Mr. HENRY SEYMOUR, Sir Faranztoca Sierra, Colonel SYKES, and Major PARKER. These Speakers tuasvrerode the arguments derived from the so-called mutiny of the local-army, showing from the papers laid before the House, that the blame did notreat upon the local soldiers, but the central Government. They also found fault with Sir Charles Wood for not consulting the Indian Council, and for not producing a specific plan of amalgamation. It was argued that the effect of the bill would be to transfer the Government of India from Calcutta to London, and the management of the army from India to the Horse Guards. It would reduce the power of the Governor-General; taking away from him the power of the sword. The Government had not shown that the change would be more economical, that the health of the Royal troops would be better than that of the local troops ; or that the character of the force would be improved. It was shown that the local soldiers treat the natives with more consideration, a result of per- manent residence, and that the local regiments sent into the field during the Sepoy mutiny a larger proportion of men than the Line. The sup- porters of the change were Mr. AYRTON, Mr. GILEGSON, and Sir CHARLES WOOD. Mr. AYRTON said now the papers were before the House, which put the subject in the most clear, concise, and full light, he could understand why Sir Charles Wood had changed his opinion. It had neeet. been understood that he was formally to consult his Council ; he had obtained from them all the information he desired, but he had acted, as it was intended he should act, upon his own responsibility. The mode in which this measure was introduced had been objected to ; there should be a perfect scheme, it was said ; but it was unnecessary for the House to have all the details before it. Many objections to the proposed change

were founded upon mere suppositions of some wrong going to be perpe- trated. He justified the change; the conduct of the local troops, he contended, had been mutinous, and evidence of their indiscipline was upon record. The change would operate no injury to the officers ; and as to the objection that officers could not be induced to remain in India, he insisted that they would remain or return according to the induce- ments held out to them. He believed that if the present system of a local service and a general service were to go on for some years, the re- sult would be most injurious to the condition of the local officers, and that the proposed change would conduce to their general interests. The bugbear of the Horse Guards had been conjured up ; but he del not be- lieve in the power of the Horse Guards to do all the mischief that was supposed. It was very much at the command of the Secretary of State for War, and in India, so far from its power being enhanced, it would rather be diminished. He believed that the maintenance of a local force would raise up local prejudices and local views, which would become paramount to other considerations.

Sie CHARLES WOOD maintained that the papers now produced bad confirmed the statement he had made in introducing the bill, mid be proceeded to notice and answer the objeotions made in the course of the

debate, vindicating himself from the charge of inconsistency founded upon his speech last year and justifying his exclusion of certain pas-

sages in confidential letters included in the papers laid before the HOMO. He had, he said, communicated fully and freely upon the subject of the Local Army with the members of the Council ; but, the question being one which the Secretary of State could not decide himself, it had re- ceived the decision of the Cabinet, which had resolved that a bill should be brought in. The matter had, therefore, not come before the Council in such a shape as to entitle them to record their opinions. Resolutions of the Members had been placed in his hands, but the Cabinet had de- termined that they could not be received. He would, nevertheless, give the Council an opportunity to record them ; and then they might be produced. "I have been taunted with bringing on a paltry measure, but I am sur- prised at that charge. The commissions of Indian officers, and all ques- tions of pay, purchase, and promotion, are settled, not by an Act of Parlia- ment, but by the Indian Government. But I thought it right and necessary to take the opinion of the House of Commons upon the subject— to make themshare the responsibility of this measure and become parties to the proceedings of the Government—and therefore introduced this bill. The same result, however, might have been attained without coming to Par- liament, and, under those circumstances, the only object being to obtain the concurrence of Parliament, I thought the shorter the bill in which that assent was obtained the better. It would have been impossible to introduce all the details of promotion and exchange into an Act of Parliament. The general principle of the alteration proposed by the Government was a simple one— namely, that there should be no local European army ; that the European force in India should be part of the Queen's general army; that the staff corps should be formed partly from the present Indian officers, and partly from the line officers, and that ultimately all the Native regiments should be officered from the staff corps." He reiterated his statements as to the expense of the projected change' the supply of officers, and other disputed points, observing that he had not heard any arguments which had changed his opinion.

Mr. A. MILLS (who rose amid loud cries for a division) said his object in the opposition he had given to the bill was not to delay legislation, or to imperil our Indian empire. Sir Charles Wood had now promised that the protest of the Indian Council should be laid on the table ; and, as his only object in the conflict of opinion which existed on this subject had been that the House should have the advantage of possessing the views taken by those gentlemen, he could not give his support to a motion which merely sought delay. Sir CHARLES WOOD—" What I said was, that I would give the Coun- cil the opportunity which I gave them on the 17th of February of re- cording their dissent, and if they chose to avail themselves of it, then I had not the slightest objection to the production of the documents. My honourable friend says I promised to produce the papers ; that is quite another matter, for I cannot say whether they will avail themselves of the opportunity. Do not let me be again accused of a breach of faith. I cannot produce the papers unless they put me in a position to do so." Mr. HORSMAN hoped that after the explanation which had just been afforded, the motion for the adjournment would not be pressed. He as- sumed, of course, that, in case the Council availed themselves of the opportunity afforded them, and recorded their dissent, the right honour- able gentleman, in laying that expression of opinion on the table of the House, would allow time for it to be considered before proceeding with the next stage of the bill. (Cries of "Hear," and " With- draw.") . The SPEAXER—" Unless the honourable member for Westminster is present the motion of adjournment cannot be withdrawn." In the absence of Sir D. Lacy Evans, the motion was then put and ;negatived. The House then divided. The numbers were :—Ayes, '282; Noes, d3; majority in favour of the second reading, 229.

HIGHWAYS.

The motion for the second reading of the Highways Bill, on Wednes- day, was met by an amendment to read it a second time that day three months, moved by Mr. HODGKINSON. He thought that no system of management would be less expensive than that which now prevails. The proposed change will lead to multiplication of paid officers and dis- trict highway boards will lead to great jobbery. He characterized the proposal as a revolution in our parochial system. Mr. KER SEY3IER thanked the Government for dealing with the ques- tion, and reminded the House that the late Sir Robert Peel, when he brought in the Corn-law Repeal Bill of 1846, promised a measure on highways. He described the imperfections of the present system, the struggles between the magistrates and way-wardens to get good roads, the difficulty of making the ratepayers who supply labour and teams to work in concert, and the vicious practice of repairing the roads by fits and starts. He objected to the bill on the ground that it was permissive. Mr._FIIEELAND and Mr. KNIGHT opposed ; Mr. HENEAGE and Mr. E D ES suplioned the- bill, the latter thinking with Mr. Seymer that it should be compulsory. General THOMPSON, speaking as a surveyor of roads, showed that under the present system it is most difficult to get good roads, and that good roads cost less than bad roads. That was the result of his experience. As a magistrate and landowner he could do nothing. When he got himself appointed surveyor, he made good roads at less cost. Mr. BARROW opposed the bill as centralizing and bureau- cratic. Mr. WALTER supported the bill, but did not think it should be compulsory. The present surveyors are ignorant of their art. Nothing is so dear as bad roads. Colonel PATTEN asked for a less costly ma- chinery than that established by the bill. Let the magistrate appoint the surveyor, and let the ratepayers control their own affairs. Sir WIL- LIAM JOLIITE hoped the House would assent to the principle of the bill. Mr. DILLWYN said the principle had worked well in South Wales. Mr. CAYLEY was for an intermediate course.

Sir GEORGE Lzw is said the bill merely authorized the magistrates at quarter sessions to introduce its provisions into a county if they thought He admitted that the circumstances of the country with regard to the re- pair of the highways differ so greatly in different districts that it might not be expedient to apply any inflexible system of legislation to all; but if this bill were passed no such inflexible rule would be applied. If the tenant- farmers and the ratepayers of any country were opposed to the system which is embodied in this bill, the magistrates would, of course, be influenced a good deal by them, and it would not be introduced into that county. Ac- cording to his experience, magistrates in quarter sessions were not at all dis- posed to undue extravagance. Being firmly convinced that the bill would lead to the more economical expenditure of money, and would produce better roads, he should, were be a dictator, and could he make laws by an ukase, be disposed to apply it compulsorily to the whole kingdom. This bill would introduce a real representative system, because it provided for the appoint- meat of Boards of way-wardens who were to be elected by the ratepayers. The bill does not provide that the treasurer should be a paid officer, and 1Le would probably in most cases be the neighbouring banker, who would be ready to keep the account of the highway district without receiving 'any salary. It is desirable that some person should be appointed at a &Mall salary to act as clerk to the way-wardens at their periodical meetings but if it were thought better that the surveyor should act as clerk he 4liould not be disposed to object to such a change. The real essence of the system embodied in this bill is that the districts for regulating the repair of the roads should be of considerable magnitude, and should not be accidentally determin- ed or limited by the boundaries of parishes ; that there should be a permonent officer to manage the roads of each district, and that he should be a paid officer. The system proposed by the present bill is founded on a principle which must be a necessary condition for the improvement of the minor means of communication—the parish roads ; and it is impossible, without adopting the iwinciple of an area of considerable extent, so that it might be superin- tended by a permanent paid officer, that any skilful and systematic mode of repairing the roads could be adopted.

Mr. HENLEY doubted whether the proposed boards would appoint efficient officers, and contended that the system would be very expensive. On a division, the amendment was negatived by 203 to 120 ; and tee bill was read a second time.

COUNCILS OF CONCILIATION.

Lord ST. LEONARDS moved the second reading of the Masters and Operatives Bill, a measure which had passed the Lower House. The bill proposes to establish councils of conciliation, not to deal with such a strike as that which lately took place in London but with minor dis- putes between masters and men. Many attempts have been vainly made to prevent evils arising from such disputes :— In France the attempt has been made with greater success. In 1806 Napoleon established these councils on a new basis. They were composed both of manufacturers and workmen ; but the manufacturers had greatly the preponderance of influence. In 1809 the councils were somewhat diffe- rently constitated, the overlookers being members of it. In this country the overlookers were understood to be the mere agents of the master, but in France they were not altogether regarded in that light. In the revolution of 1848 there was of course a cry for equality. A new law was passed, placing the masters and workmen on the same footing of equality, and they together formed the Council of Conciliation. The constitution of these councils established a singular system of cross-voting. The workmen chose nine of their body, out of whom the masters selected three, who represented the workmen. The masters in turn had to choose nine of their body, out of whom the workmen selected three, who represented the masters. The workmen chose a president out of the masters, and the masters a president out of the workmen, who presided for three months alternately. This scheme did not work well, and the consequence was that the present law was passed upon which the Councils of Conciliation were now established in France. The councils were elected by workmen who must be twenty-five years of age, who must have worked five years at their trades, and must have resided three years in the district for which they voted. A workman to be qualified to be elected a member of the council must be thirty years of age and able to read and write. The President and Vice-President were ap- pointed for a term of three years by the Government. In addition to the councils a Bureau de Conciliation was established, before whom both masters and workmen were brought. If the partied did not agree they then went before the Council of Conciliation, which had judicial powers, so that it could compel the parties to come to an understanding and to enforce the awards. Imperfect as this tribunal was it worked a wonderful amount of good in France. A great number of disPutes had been amicably settled in the first instance before the Bureaux and which consequently never came before the councils at all. These tribunals, however, never had taken cog- nizance of the question of wages. Sir Joseph Paxton had stated, before a Committee of the other House that he had to construct a work thirty miles out of Paris. There were 200 French masons employed and a number of English masons. The English masons were more expert than the French, and the French, finding that they were not obtaining the same wars, be- came discontented, although they got the highest wages ever earned by ma- sons in France. The case, however, was not one forthe councils, and they could not interfere between the parties. Having called their lordships' attention to the French law, he briefly stated what is the present state of the English law. In the reign of George II. all disputes between masters and workmen were referred to justices of the peace. In the reign: George III. an Act was passed, giving masters and men the power of referring disputes to arbitration, or to a magistrate. In 1824 a committee sat, which resulted in the passing of the 5th of George IV., cap 96, an Act which was still the law. By that Act referees were to be selected out of many who were nominated, but if the referees could not agree, a magistrate was to decide. But by section 13 of that Act, masters and operatives might by agreement have recourse to any other mode of arbi- tration they might choose, and any award made in any arbitration under such agreement could be enforced as legal. The law as it stood gave limi- ters and workmen the option of going before a magistrate to obtain a deci- sion upon their differences, or they could select referees, or they could adopt any other mode of arbitration they pleased. The section to which he had referred had become a dead letter, but the existing law gave all parties power to adopt by agreement any form.of arbitration they chose. [21 noble lord : " Then where is the necessity for this Bill ?"] Ile necessity of the Bill was that under the section of Ithe present Act there must be a fresh nomina- tion of referees to decide upon each particular ease. What the masters as well as the operatives desired was a court to which they could have recourse in all cases of dispute. One objection to the present Act was that it ex- pressly prohibited justices from dealing with questions of wages except with the consent of both parties. Another objection was that the Act of George IV. only applied to work done or being done and did not refer to future con- tracts. In truth, however, the Act was absolutely a dead letter, and even those persons who had been most active in " strikes " were ignorant of the existence of a law which permitted of arbitration in cases of disputes. This Bill had been recommended by high authorities ; by the committee of 1824; a Committee in 1856, and again a Committee which sat this year. Lord St. Leonards said he did not regard the question either as a workman's or a master's question. The provisions of the bill required that the first step should be to go to the Crown for a licence. When the licence was obtained the Court of Conciliation was to have all the power; which now existed under the Act of George IV., with the important qualification that the Court was to have no jurisdiction unless the question in dispute was sub- mitted to it by both parties, so that the bill would not give any power stall to the Court of Conciliation unless both parties went before it ; but after both parties had chosen to submit any question to the Court there would be power to compel them to go 013, although one or the other might wish to withdraw.

Lord RAVENSWORTH moved that the bill be read a second time that day three months. He denied that the existing law is inoperative, but he admitted that it could be admitted that it could be amended. The

bill before the House, however, would rather aggravate than cure the evils with which it proposed to deal. The council would contain an- tagonistic elements. None of the witnesses had been able to suggest a feasible plan for appointing a chairman. Then consider how many of these councils would be required. There must be one for every separate branch of trade. The House was asked to constitute a multitude of small parliaments, elected by the universal suffrage of all engaged in trade. Who is to bear the expense of registering the voters ? Not the Consolidated Fund, nor the county rates. For these reasons he called on the House to reject the bill.

The Earl of DERBY was disposed to give favourable consideration to a measure supported by an authority so high as Lord St. Leonards. Ile admitted that there were defects in the bill, and suggested that it should be referred to a Select Committee.

Earl GRANVILLE said there never was a bill so imperfectly drawn. He did not wish to treat lightly a bill affecting the interests of the work- ing classes, and he concurred in the suggestion that it should be sent to a Select Committee.

This course was adopted. Lord RAVENSWORTH withdrew his amend- ment, the bill was read a second time, and ordered to be referred to a Select Committee.

NAPLES.

Colonel STUART asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whe- ther her Majesty's Government had taken, or were prepared to take, any steps, in concert with the French Government to prevent the bom- bardment of Naples by the King's troops, in the event of General Garibaldi's suddenly occupying that city as he did Palermo. Lord JOHN RUSSELL made the following statement in answering the question :— "In answer to the honourable and gallant gentleman, I may say that, after the intelligence of the outrages which accompanied the bombardment Of Palermo, the question was taken into consideration what her Majesty's Government could do in order to prevent similar atrocities taking place at Messina and Naples. But with respect to the question put by the honour- able and gallant member, there are two considerations which must guide the Government on the subject. The one is, that it would be a direct interference with the civil and internal discord of another country. And even supposing that objection, on principle, to be got over, it would not only be difficult but impossible to give such precise and definite orders to the commanding officers of her Majesty's vessels of war as to enable them to distinguish between that which would be the legitimate defence of the royal troops against the attack of a mob or an insurrection and a wanton and atrocious destruction of the city and the lives of its inhabitants. Such being the case, we refrained altogether from giving any orders which would enable our naval commanders to act by force either at Naples or at Messina; but we did make strong remonstances to the Government of the King of Naples against any renewal at Messina or Naples of the dreadful scenes which took place at Palermo. I am happy to say, however, that the accounts I have received from her Majesty's minister at Naples lead me think there is no prospect at present of such a bom- bardment taking place. He informs me that he does not think it at all pro- bable, and he hopes that no insurrection whatever will occur at Naples. The honourable and gallant gentleman is aware that great changes have taken place in the Government of Naples—(laughter)—that the constitution of 1848 is proclaimed, and an election is to take place for the representatives of the assembly which will meet in September; and the Neapolitans will thus be enabled to decide what shall be their own future political condition. I may mention that the rumours which have from time to time been circu- lated respecting the conduct of her Majesty's forces and ministers abroad have often been very erroneous. There was a report some time ago, the House will remember, that the fort of Cestellamare had been occupied by the British admiral during the evacuation of Palermo by the Neapolitan troops. That report gave great uneasiness in some foreign quarters, and it was supposed that her Majesty's forces were about to take possession of Sicily. There is not the least foundation whatever for that report. There was another report which occasioned some inquiry in another place, to the effect that her Majesty's minister at Naples had taken a part in advising that the two vessels which had been captured by the Neapolitan cruisers should be given up by the Neapolitan Government. Now, I have a despatch from her Majesty's minister at Naples, in which he said he had just heard of the report, and that there is not the smallest foundation for it. He further says that he had no right to take such a course, and that if he had, he had no intention of exercising such right. He also adds that the Neapolitan Government had spontaneously given up those vessels, and that they were at liberty to return to Genoa."

GARIBALDI.

The Marquis of NORMANBY inquired whether the Government had re- ceived an intimation that Garibaldi would send a representative to Lon- don, and whether he would be received !

_ Lord WODEROUSE said he knew nothing of the matter beyond an an- nouncement in the newspapers.

• Lord Blionexam said that ninety-nine out of every hundred English- men heartily wish Garibaldi success. The Earl of ErAmrnortouou said, as to any person coming over here to represent Garibaldi, he could only say that it would be difficult to find a more truly dignified or worthy person to represent. Lord NORMANBY wished Lord Brougham would take the trouble of reading the statements on both sides, and also some of his own published opinions on the horrors of revolution, delivered both in that House and in his works.

• Lord BROUGHAM said, "I am very much obliged to my noble friend for volunteering an advertisement without any payment by Mr. Ridgway. On the part of Mr. Ridgway I thank my noble friend, as probably he has saved Mr. Ridgway five shillings. But I do not value to the extent of that sum all the information to which my noble friend refers and which I have read in the foreign papers. I mean to put a still smaller value on it. I don't value it as much as I do my noble friend's own private cor- respondence from Florence and Naples. (Loud laughter.) With respect to my opinions upon revolution delivered either in this House or else- where, I maintain every tittle of them." ("Hear," and cheers.) • Lord WODETEOUSE thought it only an act of justice to General Gari- baldi to state that all the accounts from the naval commanders on the station described him as behaving with generosity and humanity, and doing everything in his power to prevent the excesses which were too generally incidental to a state of revolution.

THE ISLAND OF SAN JiLtiv.

Mr. WILLIAMS asked the noble lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Lord Jons RUSSELL said :—" From information I have received I un- derstand that there were orders given by General Harney in total con- tradiction to the arrangement made by General Scott with respect to the occupation of the Island of San Juan. General Scott desired that a small number of the troops of each nation should occupy the island, and that there should be no exclusive jurisdiction ; but General Harney gave an order directing that the American jurisdiction was to prevail, it being an island belonging to the United States. Immediately that intelligence reached Washington, Lent Lyons communicated it to General Cass, and he laid it before the President, who directed that General Harney should lie immediately recalled, and the matter should be placed on the footing which had been arranged by General Scott. The action of the President on the subject appeared to her Majesty's Government to be quite satis- factory."

THE BIBLE IN INDIA.

On Monday evening, the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, Lord HARRIS, Earl GRANVILLE, and the Earl of DERBY, joined in a request to the Duke of Marlborough to postpone for the present his motion with regard to the exclusion of the Scriptures from the scheme of National Education in British India.

The Duke of MAninonoten, however, declined to comply, and pro- ceeded to move a resolution to the effect that the British Government in India, as the representative of a Christian nation, was charged with the duty of promoting the moral as well as the social welfare of the people of that country ; and that, in order effectually to further such objects, it was the opinion of the House that the authoritative exclusion of the Word of God from the course of education afforded in the Government colleges and schools ought, under suitable arrangements, to be removed. He contended that the introduction of the Scriptures in the educational institutions of India was the bounden duty of a Government which pro- fessed itself Christian, and that such a measure would be neither a viola- tion of the royal proclamation nor an interference with the religious free- dom of the Natives.

Lord BROUGHAM said he was quite ready to admit that the subject was one of great importance; but he was so convinced of the impolicy of dis- cussing it at the present moment that the only course open to him was to move the previous question. No further debate ensuing, the Lord CHANCELLOR put the motion of Lord Brougham, which was carried.

NEW ZEALAND. The Duke of NEWCASTLE moved the second reading of the New Zealand Bill. He explained that the object of the bill was to esta- blish a native council, under the authority of the Government, by whom all questions relating to the transfer of land might be considered. The bill was not introduced in consequence of the recent disturbances, but he believed it would prevent similar occurrences in future. Lord LvrrEvrox expressed a hope that ample time would be given for the consideration of the measure, as he feared that the establishment of two separate administrations, instead of preventing, would produce collisions.

The bill was then read a second time.

A. MILITARY GRIEVANCE. Colonel LINDSAY moved for a Select Com- mittee to inquire into and report upon the claims of seven major-generals to the pay of general officers, who are now receiving only the half-pay of brevet-majors, and who accepted substantive rank upon half-pay apon the terms and engagements contained in the Horse Guards memorandum of the 25th day of March, 1826, and general order of the 25th day of April, 1826. Colonel NORTH seconded the motion. A short debate ensued, in the course of which the motion was opposed by Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT, on the ground that the claim set up was not mint.' tamable, and that there had been no breach of faith on the part of the Horse Guards.

General PEEL supported the motion, and after some remarks from Colone% SYKES and Colonel DUNCAN, it was carried on a division by 108 to 94.

NAVAL CADETS. Captain ESMONDE moved for a Select Committee to in- quire into the present system of nomination to cadetships in the Royal Navy. He said that his only object in bringing forward the subject was to obtain information as to the manner in which these cadetships were given away, because the public were really quite in the dark with reference to the matter.

Lord CLARENCE PAGET resisted the motion, and pointed out the difficul- ties which environed the question. He denied that the patronage of the Admiralty in this respect was influenced by private and political con- siderations. and adduced in proof the fact that of the whole number of cadetships given away each year three-fourths were awarded to service claims. Mr. LIN. DSAY and Mr. Hums TAYLOR instanced cases which had come under their own knowledge in which cadetships were peremptorily refused because the applicants had neither political nor private influence at the 4.4- miralty. Sir F. BARING thought that Captain ESMONDE had failed to establish any ease to call for Parliamentary inquiry. The motion was negatived by 81 to 24.